Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$31.50
▼ $1.69 (-5.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 01:18 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.47B
Day Range
$31.39 - $33.42
52-Week Range
$11.60 - $43.73
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$31.39
Resistance
$43.39
COGT is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+147.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/26 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.35
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$37.81 vs. price $31.50 (-220.0%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
42
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
32
Quality
55
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
50
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Cogent Biosciences, Inc. has primarily focused on its strategic partnerships and financial momentum. Notably, the company announced a five-year commercial supply agreement with Hovione to manufacture bezuclastinib, a key drug. Analysts, including Piper Sandler and Guggenheim, have maintained an optimistic outlook, raising price targets and suggesting strong market potential. Additionally, an insider sold shares, while the company’s stock performance—outperforming the market by 22.44% annually—was highlighted. Coverage also underscored its pipeline strength, particularly bezuclastinib’s potential across multiple indications.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cogent Biosciences, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
93
Fundamentals
50
Technical
13
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-9%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s neutral-to-negative momentum (-0.9% ROC), combined with a narrow narrative-reality gap (8 points), suggests traders are anchored near support (3.1% above) rather than driven by FOMO or euphoria. The absence of extreme volatility (0.78x ATR) and low herding activity (peer divergence) implies cautious, position-defensive behavior. The key question: will traders hold near support, or will the 3.1% gap trigger re-evaluation? High sentiment (92/100) may mask underlying caution, but the lack of momentum or panic signals suggests a wait-and-see stance.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:18 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cogent Biosciences is positioned to commercialize bezuclastinib across three indications, leveraging a single precision molecule for multi-market entry."
"Piper Sandler analyst raises Cogent Biosciences price target to $55 from $52."
"$100 invested in Cogent Biosciences 5 years ago would be worth significantly more, outperforming the market by 22.44% annually."
"Cogent Biosciences insider sold shares worth $1,689,493, according to a recent SEC filing."
📈 10D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for COGT reflects deep methodological contrasts: Bagehot and Nelson’s high scores (96 and 91) highlight liquidity and cyclical positioning as strengths, suggesting resilience and timing advantages, while Fisher’s zero score underscores a fundamental data gap that would disqualify it outright. Meanwhile, Graham’s mixed verdict (58) and Marks’ caution (58) reveal a split between valuation rigor and business quality concerns, with the latter questioning whether expectations are already baked in. On the opposite end, Livermore’s low score (31) and Veblen’s (13) flag structural red flags—trend resistance and speculative growth dynamics—while Lynch and Housel’s scores (27) dismiss it as lacking growth justification or volatility tolerance. Schwager’s disciplined setup (76) contrasts sharply with the efficient-market skeptics (35), illustrating how technical setups can clash with passive indexing logic, while the middle-ground scores (e.g., Smith, Loeb at 55) imply moderate appeal but no clear long-term mandate.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 96
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 68
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 58
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 55
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 33
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 27
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 27
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 18
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 13
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-51.7%
ROA
-35.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.16
Cash
$312.01M
Total Debt
$222.90M
Current Ratio
14.23
Debt/Equity
0.35
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$31.50
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$37.81
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-220.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-292.60M | $-268.44M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-316.37M | $-266.28M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-336.14M | $-259.57M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-350.85M | $-248.55M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-359.62M | $-233.73M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-266.00M
Terminal Value
$-5.67B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-3.69B
Enterprise Value
$-4.96B
Net Debt
$-89.12M
Equity Value
$-4.87B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$4.94
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.94
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 23.8.2026
Zacks · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
MT Newswires · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
ChartMill · 28.7.2026
Cogent Biosciences, Inc. (COGT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
COGT currently scores 42/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, COGT's estimated fair value is -$37.81, which is 220.0% below the current price of $31.50. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
COGT's technical score is 13/100, which currently reads as bearish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Debt/equity: 0.35; Current ratio: 14.23; Debt/equity: 0.35.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$37.81 vs. price $31.50 (-220.0%); ATR: 4.6% of price; Return on equity (ROE): -51.7% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for COGT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morris Arlene | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 0 | -3,161 | $37.54 |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 41,927 | +41,927 | $5.64 |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 45,510 | +3,583 | $2.52 |
| Morris Arlene | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 3,161 | -42,349 | $37.09 |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 2,773 | -41,927 | — |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 0 | -3,583 | — |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 3,583 | -3,583 | — |
| Morris Arlene | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 42,349 | -42,349 | $37.09 |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 3,583 | +3,583 | $2.52 |
| Morris Arlene | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 3,161 | -3,161 | $37.54 |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 41,927 | +41,927 | $5.64 |
| Morris Arlene | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 41,927 | -41,927 | — |
| Ferrante Karen Jean | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 627 | +627 | — |
| Ferrante Karen Jean | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 627 | +627 | — |
| Ferrante Karen Jean | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| CAIN CHRISTOPHER W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Shegog Todd | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Ros Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Morris Arlene | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Harwin Peter Evan | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Morris Arlene | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Ferrante Karen Jean | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| CAIN CHRISTOPHER W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Harwin Peter Evan | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
| Ros Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 17,901 | +17,901 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,747,531 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 17,893,139 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 52.4% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology